• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Cloud Calculations

Status
Not open for further replies.
DontTalkDT said:
For clouds floating lower than 2000m it would be a buff, for clouds floating higher up than 2000m it would be a nerf.
Click to expand...
Therefir's proposal tried making that limit around 2500 m, no?

DontTalkDT said:
It's basically the same as using Therefir's density table in the OP, just (if done right) more accurate as it considers all in-between density values as well, which the table doesn't show. (and correctly "sums up" all the different density values)
Click to expand...
Suspected as much.
 
Thefir's proposal in the OP was to use the density value at 6km for storm clouds and the current value for everything below 2500 m (as in those realms the air density is higher than the current value).
That's a very simple approximation, of course. Meaning Pro: It's easy. Contra: It's off by a decent amount.
I think since we have more accurate alternatives it's best to use them.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Thefir's proposal in the OP was to use the density value at 6km for storm clouds and the current value for everything below 2500 m (as in those realms the air density is higher than the current value).
That's a very simple approximation, of course. Meaning Pro: It's easy. Contra: It's off by a decent amount.
I think since we have more accurate alternatives it's best to use them.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm, fair point I suppose.
 
DontTalkDT said:
For clouds floating lower than 2000m it would be a buff, for clouds floating higher up than 2000m it would be a nerf.

It's basically the same as using Therefir's density table in the OP, just (if done right) more accurate as it considers all in-between density values as well, which the table doesn't show. (and correctly "sums up" all the different density values)
Click to expand...
For clouds several kilometers thick, would the air density used for mass be the air density at the cloud base, the top, or the middle?
 
this means cloud calcs will have to be redone all around no matter the altitiude?
 
KLOL506 said:
Possibly. Clouds below 2000 meters get a significant buff. Anything above gets a nerf.
Click to expand...
Oh wait yeah idk why i'm tripping over this that means my current cloud calc that uses 600m is about to be buffed to hell
 
KLOL506 said:
Possibly. Clouds below 2000 meters get a significant buff. Anything above gets a nerf.
Click to expand...
Dalesean027 said:
Oh wait yeah idk why i'm tripping over this that means my current cloud calc that uses 600m is about to be buffed to hell
Click to expand...
But if the cloud base is say, 500 meters off the ground, but the whole cloud is 3000 meters thick, then part of it is below 2000 meters and part of it is above 2000 meters, so is it buffed or nerfed?
 
ElajRuengies said:
But if the cloud base is say, 500 meters off the ground, but the whole cloud is 3000 meters thick, then part of it is below 2000 meters and part of it is above 2000 meters, so is it buffed or nerfed?
Click to expand...
if possible I'd assume you can measure the distance between the two and use different results per each and combine the final product
 
ElajRuengies said:
For clouds several kilometers thick, would the air density used for mass be the air density at the cloud base, the top, or the middle?
Click to expand...
All of the above if you ask about my version. In my calculation, I integrated over the density formula, so that at each height I use the density of that specific height to find the mass.
 
DontTalkDT said:
All of the above if you ask about my version. In my calculation, I integrated over the density formula, so that at each height I use the density of that specific height to find the mass.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah- you got a 1m2 cloud going from 0 to 1000 meters to be 1167.62 kg

Averaging the densities of air at 0 and 1000 meters (1.225 + 1.112 = ) 1.1685, and then using that, the result would've been 1168.5 kg for the cloud, which is very very close to 1167.62 kg.

So could I just average the densities at the cloud base and top to approximate?
 
ElajRuengies said:
Oh yeah- you got a 1m2 cloud going from 0 to 1000 meters to be 1167.62 kg

Averaging the densities of air at 0 and 1000 meters (1.225 + 1.112 = ) 1.1685, and then using that, the result would've been 1168.5 kg for the cloud, which is very very close to 1167.62 kg.

So could I just average the densities at the cloud base and top to approximate?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. I don't think a simple linear approximation like that will ever be off very much, but obviously, it gets worse as clouds get thicker and I think also at certain altitudes (the ones where the density change is exponential for example)

So for now that or Thefir's method of taking the density in the middle are probably ok, but if I finish that calculator using that would still be better (and equally easy).
 
DontTalkDT said:
Hard to say. I don't think a simple linear approximation like that will ever be off very much, but obviously, it gets worse as clouds get thicker and I think also at certain altitudes (the ones where the density change is exponential for example)

So for now that or Thefir's method of taking the density in the middle are probably ok, but if I finish that calculator using that would still be better (and equally easy).
Click to expand...
We can wait for your method then.
 
Btw. since it factors into the cloud/air density now we should probably update the cloud calculations page with the height at which each cloud type typically floats. (i.e. meters between sea level and the bottom of the cloud)
Does anyone feel motivated to look that up for each cloud type?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Btw. since it factors into the cloud/air density now we should probably update the cloud calculations page with the height at which each cloud type typically floats. (i.e. meters between sea level and the base of the cloud)
Does anyone feel motivated to look that up for each cloud type?
Click to expand...
I'm bored so I'll look into it and see what I find
 
I'm also doing jack shit (playing apex on pc) if additional help is needed and from the top of my head I can say cumulus clouds are in the 1,000 to 5,000ft range
 
DontTalkDT said:
Btw. since it factors into the cloud/air density now we should probably update the cloud calculations page with the height at which each cloud type typically floats. (i.e. meters between sea level and the bottom of the cloud)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this should be a good idea.

DontTalkDT said:
Does anyone feel motivated to look that up for each cloud type?
Click to expand...
I have no idea where to start.
 
I'm gonna link multiple source statements for each one and we can determine what's best to use for each:
And with that I take a massive exhale from trying to find all these
 
I will look into which heights from the sources is best in a bit, but for now: My calculator is done.

Good news is the density it gives (by using 1m thickness and 1m area) approximately matches the table and if one looks at the value from 0 to infinite one gets the correct weight of a 1m^2 air pillar (10322kg). So it seems to work.

I still would like a few of you to make sure everything works correctly before we take it into big use. It would suck to later on redo all calcs because I made a small mistake somewhere.
 
now I'm a bit of a dummy so since this is new to me so please work with me, I'm trying to translate a calc I did into this calculator to check the kg what exactly is the 1m^2 representing I know its the area above which the cloud/air floats (in m^2) or rather I guess what I'm asking is how exactly I should be applying the previous method into this new calculator

pi*(viewing distance)^2*(cloud thickness) am I correct in saying that I'm no longer using the viewing distance we used prior or would that be what we're using in m^2
 
The "Area above which the cloud/air floats" would be calculated as pi*(viewing distance)^2, where viewing distance is the same number as in the original calc. (assuming that was in m^2)
The "cloud/air thickness" is the number you used as cloud thickness before. (assuming that was in m)
And the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is a new number you have to determine. (either via scaling or by cloud type)
 
DontTalkDT said:
The "Area above which the cloud/air floats" would be calculated as pi*(viewing distance)^2, where viewing distance is the same number as in the original calc. (assuming that was in m^2)
The "cloud/air thickness" is the number you used as cloud thickness before. (assuming that was in m)
And the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is a new number you have to determine. (either via scaling or by cloud type)
Click to expand...
okay so this is what I've got
pi*(2,082.52799m)^2 = 13,624,844.92m^2
I used 600m cloud thickness for the cumulus cloud
and 600m for the height of my air bottom above sea level

this net me 9,178,195,055.64826 kg

that's significantly higher than what I got before and since this is from below 2000m I assume that's the buff as said previously
 
Dalesean027 said:
okay so this is what I've got
pi*(2,082.52799m)^2 = 13,624,844.92m^2
I used 600m cloud thickness for the cumulus cloud
and 600m for the height of my air bottom above sea level

this net me 9,178,195,055.64826 kg

that's significantly higher than what I got before and since this is from below 2000m I assume that's the buff as said previously
Click to expand...
If your previous calc was correct it should be 1.11x higher. So notably higher, but probably not a big upgrade for the character.
But yeah, it is indeed a buff due to higher density close to the ground.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If your previous calc was correct it should be 1.11x higher. So notably higher, but probably not a big upgrade for the character.
But yeah, it is indeed a buff due to higher density close to the ground.
Click to expand...
ah yeah I actually stupidly read it wrong so don't mind that, my calc previously got 8,199,431,660kg compared to the now calculated 9,178,195,055.64826 kg
 
Does this mean that the storm common feats is going to get upgraded from this?
 
Calculator's working well for me! (My cloud calc straddles the 2000 meter mark so the output's basically the same for me)
 
Last edited:
I've checked all the results and I'm indeed getting a 1.11x increase I made sure to check for each of the relevant values and the final results
 
I'm using the measurements of this calc I made mainly because I want to see how it might be affected.

So the area would be pi * 706469.83^2, or 1.5679677e+12 m^2. Thickness would be 8000 meters as storm clouds normally are. And for the altitude, I'll use 2000 feet (609.6 meters) based on the sources I've sent.

The final result for the mass is 9,856,006,914,848,036 kg (or about 9.856007e+15 kg) compared to the previous 1.25813728e+16 kg. Does that sound right?
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I'm gonna link multiple source statements for each one and we can determine what's best to use for each:
And with that I take a massive exhale from trying to find all these
Click to expand...
So which of these heights should be used as the standard?
 
KLOL506 said:
So which of these heights should be used as the standard?
Click to expand...
Depends on the kind of cloud. Cutting stratus clouds should be different than cutting cirrus clouds.
[Edit: Oh wait you meant the standard levels for each type of cloud since there's multiple estimates per each type]
 
ElajRuengies said:
Depends on the kind of cloud. Cutting stratus clouds should be different than cutting cirrus clouds.
[Edit: Oh wait you meant the standard levels for each type of cloud since there's multiple estimates per each type]
Click to expand...
The second one, yes.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I'm gonna link multiple source statements for each one and we can determine what's best to use for each:
And with that I take a massive exhale from trying to find all these
Click to expand...
We will definitely put ranges on the page, as clouds obviously vary a lot, so we probably don't need too selective here.
  • Cirrus: I trust the NOAA and university more than that other page. So I would say 4572m to 9144m is good.
  • Stratus: 609.6m is the only lower end so we take that. I think 1828.8 is a good upper end, given the data and the fact that I don't trust the first side in the slightest.
  • Cumulus: I would use first source as most credible. So 304m to 1524m.
  • Stratocumulus: 403m to 1219m as first source seems most credible again.
  • Nimbostratus: 609 to 3048m sounds good as wikipedia also says about 3000m as upper end.
  • Cumulonimbus: I think 609.6 to 16000 is a good range to take IMO.
 
I'm a bit lost with this so what would be the "area above which the cloud/air floats" of a storm that covers the entire Earth?
 
DontTalkDT said:
We will definitely put ranges on the page, as clouds obviously vary a lot, so we probably don't need too selective here.
  • Cirrus: I trust the NOAA and university more than that other page. So I would say 4572m to 9144m is good.
  • Stratus: 609.6m is the only lower end so we take that. I think 1828.8 is a good upper end, given the data and the fact that I don't trust the first side in the slightest.
  • Cumulus: I would use first source as most credible. So 304m to 1524m.
  • Stratocumulus: 403m to 1219m as first source seems most credible again.
  • Nimbostratus: 609 to 3048m sounds good as wikipedia also says about 3000m as upper end.
  • Cumulonimbus: I think 609.6 to 16000 is a good range to take IMO.
Click to expand...
https://www.weather.gov/media/owlie/cloud_chart.pdf

Btw, here is a fully detailed chart made by NOAA as well regarding cloud types.
 
DontTalkDT said:
We will definitely put ranges on the page, as clouds obviously vary a lot, so we probably don't need too selective here.
  • Cirrus: I trust the NOAA and university more than that other page. So I would say 4572m to 9144m is good.
  • Stratus: 609.6m is the only lower end so we take that. I think 1828.8 is a good upper end, given the data and the fact that I don't trust the first side in the slightest.
  • Cumulus: I would use first source as most credible. So 304m to 1524m.
  • Stratocumulus: 403m to 1219m as first source seems most credible again.
  • Nimbostratus: 609 to 3048m sounds good as wikipedia also says about 3000m as upper end.
  • Cumulonimbus: I think 609.6 to 16000 is a good range to take IMO.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. Only question then is how do we determine what to use from the range in individual calcs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aolphl
About Clouds Density
Replies
15
Views
695
Aolphl
Aolphl
Flashlight237
Revisiting Storm Calc Issues
Replies
8
Views
2K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
Jason_Courne
Akuma's Sekia Kuretsua calculations and possible issues discussion thread
Replies
15
Views
2K
Continuum19
Continuum19
Demon_Lord18
NNT calculations
Replies
21
Views
2K
Shamangel
Shamangel
Damage3245
  • Locked
One Piece - Issues with temperature of ice
Replies
17
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Back
Top